Civil & Environmental Engineering: Dept. Report October 2002

Dept.
Report
October 2002
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Errata of and additions to

ESEE Report No. 01-1:
A comprehensive worldwide
summary of strong-motion
attenuation relationships for peak
ground acceleration and spectral
ordinates (1969 to 2000)
J. Douglas
Imperial College of Science, Technology

and Medicine
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
London, SW7 2BU, U.K.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Errata to ESEE 01-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Extra references which cite equations given in ESEE 01-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration . .
2.1 Denham et al. (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Sigbjornsson (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 McVerry et al. (1993) & McVerry et al. (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Ambraseys & Srbulov (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Lee et al. (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Sarma & Free (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Singh et al. (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Costa et al. (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 Zare et al. (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 Monguilner et al. (2000a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11 Chang et al. (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.12 Lussou et al. (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13 Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) & Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002) . . . . . . . . .
2.14 Gulkan & Kalkan (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.15 Khademi (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.16 Margaris et al. (2002a) & Margaris et al. (2002b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.17 Schwarz et al. (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.18 Stamatovska (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.19 Tromans & Bommer (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.20 Zonno & Montaldo (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
10
12
13
13
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
3. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration . . . . . . . 21

4. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for spectral ordinates
4.1 Trifunac (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Trifunac (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Trifunac & Anderson (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Trifunac & Lee (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Trifunac & Lee (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Kamiyama (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 Dahle et al. (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8 Lee & Trifunac (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9 Molas & Yamazaki (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10 Monguilner et al. (2000b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.11 Lussou et al. (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.12 Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) & Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002) . . .
4.13 Gulkan & Kalkan (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.14 Khademi (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
Contents
4.15 Manic (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.16 Schwarz et al. (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.17 Zonno & Montaldo (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for spectral ordinates . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. INTRODUCTION
ESEE Report 01-1 A comprehensive worldwide summary of strong-motion attenuation relationships for peak
ground acceleration and spectral ordinates (1969 to 2000) was completed and released last year. Since then
some minor errors have been found in the text and tables, and additional studies have been found in the
literature which were not included in ESEE 01-1. This short report gives an errata list and provides details of
the additional studies.
1.1
Errata to ESEE 01-1
p. 9
p. 9
Milne & Davenport (1969)

Denham & Small (1971)
where A is in g . . . should read where A is in % of g . . .

Y = b1 + b2 M + b3 log R should read log Y = b1 + b2 +
b3 log R
p. 36
Dahle et al. (1990b) & Dahle

et al. (1990a)
p. 48
Sun & Peng (1993)
p. 50
Lawson
&
Krawinkler
(1994)
Campbell (1997) & Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994)
and: G(R, R0 ) = R01 RR0

for R > R0 should read and:

1 R0 5/6
G(R, R0 ) = R0
for R > R0
R
log A = a + bM c ln(R + h) + dTs should read ln A =
a + bM c ln(R + h) + dTs
Does not give . . . should read Do not give . . .
p. 61
p. 61
p. 71
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
1.2
79
80
82
82
84
87
87
118
Campbell (1997) & Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994)

Ambraseys
&
Douglas
(2000)
Chiaruttini & Siro (1981)

PML (1982)
Huo & Hu (1991)
Spudich et al. (1996)
Spudich et al. (1996)
5/6
p
ln AH = a1 + a2 M + a3 ln RSEIS + [a4 exp(a5 M )]2
. . . q should read ln AH
=
a1 + a2 M +
2
a3 ln RSEIS
+ [a4 exp(a5 M )]2 . . .
. . . = 1.73 0.140 ln(AH ) . . . should read . . . = 0.173
0.140 ln(AH ) . . .
log y = b1 + b2 Ms + b3 d + bA SA bs Ss should read log y =
b 1 + b 2 Ms + b3 d + b A S A + bs S s
characterisitics should read characteristics
refering should read referring
de should read dh
de or df should read dh or dr
483+25 should read 383+25
Spudich et al. (1997) should be added
G,C should be G,O
characterisitics should read characteristics
Extra references which cite equations given in ESEE 01-1
Some of the equations reported in ESEE 01-1 are

ESEE 01-1. These include:
p. 10
Esteva & Villaverde (1973)
p. 10
Ambraseys (1975b)
pp. 21 & 93 Joyner & Fumal (1984) &
Joyner & Boore (1988)
pp. 7172 & Ambraseys & Douglas
113
(2000)
also reported in other references which were not given in

Also reported in Esteva (1974)
Also reported in Ambraseys (1978) and in Ambraseys (1975a)
Also reported in Joyner & Fumal (1985)
Also reported in Ambraseys & Douglas (2002)
2. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL PUBLISHED ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR PEAK

GROUND ACCELERATION
2.1
Denham et al. (1973)

Ground motion model is:
log Ya = a1 + a2 ML + b3 log R
where Ya is in cms2 , a1 = 2.91, a2 = 0.32 and a3 = 1.45 ( is not given).
Use records from Yonki station (20 records) which is on 50 m of recent alluvium and from Paguna
station (5 records) which is on unconsolidated volcanic rock.
Question validity of combining data at the two sites because of differences in geological foundations.
Note large standard errors associated with coefficients preclude accurate predictions of ground motions.
Also derive equation for Yonki station separately.
2.2
Sigbjornsson (1990)
apeak = 0 exp(1 M ) exp(2 R)R P
where P = 1.
Notes that data are very limited and any definite conclusions should, therefore, be avoided.
Does not give coefficients, only predictions.
2.3
McVerry et al. (1993) & McVerry et al. (1995)

Ground motion model is (Type A):
log10 PGA = a + bMw cr d log10 r
where P GA is in g, a = 1.434 0.339, b = 0.209 0.036, c = 0.00297 0.00093, d = 0.449
0.186 and = 0.276.
Find that ground motions in previous earthquakes were significantly higher than the motions predicted
by equations derived from W. N. America data.
Only include records from earthquakes for which Mw is known because of poor correlation between
ML and Mw in New Zealand.
Focal depths, he 122 km.
140 records from reverse faulting earthquakes.
Divide records into crustal and deep earthquakes.
2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration
Only use records for which reliable event information is available, regardless of their distances with
respect to untriggered instruments.
Only use records which triggered on the P-wave.
Also derive separate equations for shallow, upper crustal earthquakes (he 20 km, 102 records, 5.1
Mw 7.3, 13 r 274 km) and crustal earthquakes (he 50 km, 169 records, 5.1 Mw 7.3,
13 r 274 km).
Also try equations of form: log10 PGA = a + bMw d log10 r (Type B) and log10 PGA = a +
bMw cr log10 r (Type C) because of large standard errors and highly correlated estimates for some
of the coefficients (particularly c and d). Find Type B usually gives much reduced standard errors for d
than Type A model and have lowest correlation between coefficients, but are sceptical of extrapolating to
distance ranges shorter and longer than the range of data. Type C usually has similar standard deviations
to Type A. Find that usually all three models give similar predictions over distance range of most of the
data, but sometimes considerably different values at other distances.
Derive separate equations for reverse faulting earthquakes only and usually find similar results to the
combined equations.
Find deep earthquakes produce significantly higher PGAs than shallow earthquakes for similar r.
2.4
Ambraseys & Srbulov (1994)

log a = b1 + b2 Ms + b3 r + b4 log r
where r = (d2 + h20 )0.5
where a is in g, b1 = 1.58, b2 = 0.260, b3 = 0.00346, b4 = 0.625, h0 = 4 and = 0.26.
Do not consider effect of site geology but expect it to be statistically insignificant for PGA.
Focal depths, h < 25 km. Mean focal depth is 10 4 km.
Mean magnitude of earthquakes considered is 6.0 0.7.
Most records from d < 100 km.
Only use records with PGA > 0.01 g.
Records mainly from SMA-1s located at ground floor or in basements of buildings and structures and
free-field sites regardless of topography.
Records from thrust earthquakes (46% of total), normal earthquakes (26%) and strike-slip earthquakes
(28%).
Baseline correct and low-pass filter records. Select cut-offs from visual examination of Fourier amplitude spectrum of uncorrected time-histories and choose cut-off below which the Fourier amplitude
spectrum showed an unrealistic energy increase due to digitization noise and instrument distortions.
Find (from reprocessing about 300 records) that with very few exceptions differences in PGAs arising
from different methods of processing are not significant, remaining below 3%.
Also derive equation which includes focal depth explicitly.
2.5
Lee et al. (1995)

Ground motion models are (if define site in terms of local geological site classification):
X
bi6 SLi + b70 rR + b71 (1 r)R
log amax = M + Att(/L, M, T ) + b1 M + b2 s + b3 v + b4 + b5 M 2 +
i
or (if define site in terms of depth of sediment):

log amax = M + Att(/L, M, T ) + b1 M + b2 h + b3 v + b4 + b5 M 2 +
bi6 SLi + b70 rR + b71 (1 r)R
where:

b0 log10
b0 log10 max (R Rmax )/200
1/2

R2 + H 2 + S 2
= S ln 2
R + H 2 + S02
max = (Rmax , H, S)
p
1
Rmax =
( + 2 4H 2 )
2
Att(, M, T ) =
for
for
R Rmax
R > Rmax
S0 is correlation radius of source function and can be approximated by S0 T /2 (for PGA assume
T 0.1 s so use S0 = 0.1 km), is shear-wave velocity in source region, T is period, S is source
dimension approximated by S = 0.2 for M < 3 and S = 25.34 + 8.51M for 3 M 7.25, L
is rupture length of earthquake approximated by L = 0.01 100.5M km and v is component direction
(v = 0 for horizontal 1 for vertical). Different b0 , b70 and b71 are calculated for five different path
categories. The coefficients are not reported here due to lack of space.
Use four types of site parameter:
Local geological site classification (defined for all records):
s = 0 Sites on sediments.
s = 1 Intermediate sites.
s = 2 Sites on basement rock.
Depth of sediments from surface to geological basement rock beneath site, h (defined for 1675
records out of 1926).
Local soil type parameter describes average soil stiffness in top 100200 m (defined for 1456
records out of 1926):
sL = 0 Rock soil sites SL1 = 1, SL2 = 0 and SL3 = 0. Characterises soil up to depth of less than
10 m.
sL = 1 Stiff soil sites SL1 = 1, SL2 = 0 and SL3 = 0 (shear-wave velocities < 800 ms1 up to
depth of 75100 m).
sL = 2 Deep soil sites SL2 = 1, SL1 = 0 and SL3 = 0. (shear-wave velocities < 800 ms1 up to
depth of 150200 m).
sL = 3 Deep cohesionless soil sites SL3 = 1, SL1 = 0 and SL2 = 0 (only use for one site with 10
records).
Average soil velocity in top 30 m, vL (if unavailable then use soil velocity parameter, sT ) (defined
for 1572 records out of 1926):
Soil type A vL > 750 ms1 .
Soil type B 360 ms1 < vL 750 ms1 .
Soil type C 180 ms1 < vL 360 ms1 .

Soil type D vL 180 ms1 .
Only include records for which significant subset of site parameters (s, h, sL , vL ) exist.
Almost all earthquakes have focal depths H 15 km; all focal depths H 43 km.
Use records from 138 aftershocks of Imperial Valley earthquake (15/10/1979), which contribute most
of M 3 records.
Use records from 109 earthquakes with M 3.
Use free-field records.
Characterise path by two methods:
Fraction of wave path travelled through geological basement rock measured at surface, from epicentre to station, 0 r 1.
Generalised path type classification:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sediments to sediments.
Rock-to-sediments, vertically.
Rock-to-sediments, horizontally.
Rock-to-rock.
Rock-to-rock through sediments, vertically.
Rock-to-sediments through rock and sediments, vertically.
Rock-to-sediments though rock and sediments, horizontally.
Rock-to-rock through sediments, horizontally.
Due to lack of data combine path types 2 and 6 in new category 2, combine path types 3 and 7 in
new category 3, combine path types 4, 5 and 8 in new category 4 (when r 6= 1) and combine 4,
5 and 8 in new category 5 (when r = 1).
Plot PGA against magnitude and distance to get surface by interpolation. Plot without smoothing and
with light and intense smoothing. Find for small magnitude (M 34) earthquakes attenuation is
faster than for large magnitude (M 67) earthquakes.
Use a multi-step residue regression method. First fit log amax = M +Att(, M, T )+b1 M +b2 s+b3 v+
b4 + b5 M 2 (or log amax = M + Att(, M, T ) + b1 M + b2 h + b3 v + b4 + b5 M 2 ) and calculate residuals
(1) (1)
= log amax log a
max where amax is estimated PGA and a
max is recorded PGA. Fit = b7 SL +
(0) (0)
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
(3) (3)
(i)
(i)
b7 SL +b7 SL +b7 SL +b7 SL where SL = 1 if sL = i and SL = 0 otherwise. Find significant
dependence. Try including vL both as a continuous and discrete parameter in model but not significant
at 5% significance level. Next calculate residuals from last stage and fit = b00 log10 (/L) + b04 +
b60 rR + b61 (1 r)R for each of the five path type groups (1 to 5). Lastly combine all the individual
results together into final equation.
Note that b70 and b71 can only be applied for R . 100 km where data is currently available. For
R & 100 km the predominant wave type changes to surface waves and so b70 and b71 do not apply.
2.6
Sarma & Free (1995)

log(ah ) = C1 + C2 M + C3 M 2 + C4 log(R) + C5 R + C6 S
q
where R =
d2 + h20
where ah is in g, C1 = 3.4360, C2 = 0.8532, C3 = 0.0192, C4 = 0.9011, C5 = 0.0020,

C6 = 0.0316, h0 = 4.24 and = 0.424.
Use two site categories:
S = 0 Rock
S = 1 Soil
Use one-stage method because of the predominance of earthquakes with single recordings in the set.
Note that it is very important to choose a functional form based as much as possible on physical grounds
because the data is sparse or non-existent for important ranges of distance and magnitude.
Carefully verify all the distances in set.
Use focal depths from (in order of preference): special reports (such as aftershock monitoring), local
agencies and ISC and NEIS determinations. Focal depths < 30 km.
Do not use ML or mb because of a variety of reasons. One of which is the saturation of ML and mb at
higher magnitudes (ML , mb > 6).
If more than one estimate of Mw made then use average of different estimates.
Use PGAs from: a) digital or digitised analogue records which have been baseline corrected and filtered,
b) data listings of various agencies and c) other literature. Difference between PGA from different
sources is found to be small.
Also derive equations assuming C3 = 0 (using rock and soil records and only soil records) and C3 = 0,
C4 = 1 and C6 = 0 (using only rock records).
Include records from Nahanni region and find similar results.
Also derive equations for Australia (115 records from 86 earthquakes, 2.4 Mw 6.1, 1 de
188 km) and N. E. China (Tangshan) (193 records from 64 earthquakes, 3.5 Mw 7.5, 2 de
199 km) . Find considerable difference in estimated PGAs using the equations for the three different
regions.
2.7
Singh et al. (1996)

log10 AGM = b1 + 0.31M b3 log R
cms2 ,
where AGM is in
errors in the abstract.
b1 = 1.14 and b3 = 0.615 ( is not given). Note there are typographical
Data from three earthquakes with mb = 5.7, one with mb = 5.8 and one with mb = 7.2.
Adopt magnitude scaling coefficient (0.31) from Boore (1983).
2.8
Costa et al. (1998)

log(A) = a + bM + c log(r)
where A is in g, a = 1.879, b = 0.431 and c = 1.908 (for vertical components) and a = 2.114,
b = 0.480 and c = 1.693 (for horizontal components).
All records from digital instruments.
Try including a term d log(M ) but tests show that d is negligible with respect to a, b and c.
10
Zare et al. (1999)
2.9

log A = aM bX d log X + ci Si
where units of A not given (but probably ms2 ), for vertical PGA a = 0.362, b = 0.0002, c1 = 1.124,
c2 = 1.150, c3 = 1.139, c4 = 1.064, d = 1 and = 0.336 and for horizontal PGA a = 0.360,
b = 0.0003, c1 = 0.916, c2 = 0.862, c3 = 0.900, c4 = 0.859, d = 1 and = 0.333.
Use four site categories, which were based on H/V receiver function (RF) measurements (use geotechnical measurements at 50 sites and strong-motion accelerograms at other sites):
Site class 1 RF does not exhibit any significant amplification below 15 Hz. Corresponds to rock and stiff
sediment sites with average S-wave velocity in top 30 m (Vs,30 ) > 700 ms1 . Use c1 .
Site class 2 RF exhibits a fundamental peak exceeding 3 at a frequency between 5 and 15 Hz. Corresponds to
stiff sediments and/or soft rocks with 500 < Vs,30 700 ms1 . Use c2 .
Site class 3 RF exhibits peaks between 2 and 5 Hz. Corresponds to alluvial sites with 300 < Vs,30
500 ms1 . Use c3 .
Site class 4 RF exhibits peaks for frequencies < 2 Hz. Corresponds to thick soft alluvium. Use c4 .
Only 100 records are associated with earthquakes with known focal mechanisms, 40 correspond to
strike-slip/reverse, 31 to pure strike-slip, 24 to pure reverse and 4 to a pure vertical plane. Note that use
of equations should be limited to sources with such mechanisms.
Use only records for which the signal to noise ratio was acceptable.
Source parameters from teleseismic studies available for 279 records.
Calculate source parameters directly from the strong-motion records for the remaining 189 digital
records using a source model. Hypocentral distance from S-P time and seismic moment from level
of acceleration spectra plateau and corner frequency.
Focal depths from 9 to 133 km but focal depth determination is very imprecise and majority of earthquakes are shallow.
Suggest that whenever estimation of depth of earthquake is impossible use distance to surface projection of fault rather than hypocentral distance because differences between hypocentral and epicentral
distances are not significant for shallow earthquakes.
Also derive equations based only on data from the Zagros thrust fault zone (higher seismic activity rate
with many earthquakes with 4 M 6) and based only on data from the Alborz-Central Iran zone
(lower seismic activity rate but higher magnitude earthquakes). Find some differences between regions.
Investigate fixing d to 1 (corresponding to body waves) and to 0.5 (corresponding to surface waves).
Note that there are very few (only two) near-field (from less than 10 km from surface fault rupture)
records from earthquakes with Mw > 6.0 and so results are less certain for such combinations of
magnitude and distance.
2.10
Monguilner et al. (2000a)

log am = C00 + C1 M + C2 + C3 log + C40 Sr
11
p
where = DE2 + H 2 + S 2 , DE is epicentral distance, H is focal depth, S is fault area and C00 =
1.23, C1 = 0.068, C2 = 0.001 and C3 = 0.043 ( is not given). Note that there are typographical
inconsistencies in the text, namely Sr maybe should be replaced by Sal .
Use two site categories (based on Argentinean seismic code):
Sr = 1 Stiff soil (IIA ).
Sr = 0 Intermediate stiff soil (IIB ).
Since there is no geotechnical data available, classify sites, assuming a uniform surface layer, using the
predominant period of ground motions estimated using Fourier spectra to get an equivalent shear-wave
velocity (mainly these are between 100 and 400 ms1 ).
Records from instruments located in basements or ground floors of relatively small buildings.
Records from SMAC and SMA-1 instruments.
Uniform digitisation and correction procedure applied to all records to reduce noise in high and low
frequency range.
Calculate fault area using log S = Ms + 8.13 0.6667 log(/) where is stress drop, is
average stress and is rigidity.
Most magnitudes between 5.5 and 6.0.
Most records from DE < 100 km.
Most focal depths, H 40 km. One earthquake with H = 120 km.
Use weighted regression because of a correlation between magnitude and distance of 0.35. Weight each
record by i = (M + DH )/2 where (note there are typographical errors in formulae in paper):
M
DH =
MT
log DHT
ns (is )M (ni )ne (ni , is )MT

ncat
ns (is ) log DH(ni )ne (ni , is ) log DHT
ncat
P
M (ni )
n
P cat
log DH(ni )
ncat
where M (ni ) is the width of the ni th magnitude interval and log DH(ni ) is the width of the ni th
distance interval, ncat is total number of intervals, ni the index of the interval, ne (ni , is ) is the number of
records in interval ni from site classification is and ns is the number of records from site classification
is . Use two site classifications, three magnitude intervals and four epicentral distance intervals so
ncat = 2 3 4 = 24.
First do regression on log ai = C0 + C1 M + C2 + C3 log and then regress residuals, i , against
C4 Sr +C5 Sal where Sal = 1 if site is intermediate stiff soil and Sal = 0 otherwise. Then C00 = C0 +C5
and C40 = C4 + C5 . Similar method to that used by Ambraseys et al. (1996).
12
2.11 Chang et al. (2001)

Ground motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes is:
ln A = c1 + c2 M c3 ln Dp (c4 c5 Dp ) ln De
where A is in cms2 , c1 = 2.8096, c2 = 0.8993, c3 = 0.4381, c4 = 1.0954, c5 = 0.0079 and
= 0.60.
Ground motion model for subduction earthquakes is:
ln A = c01 + c02 M c03 ln Dp c04 ln Dh
where A is in cms2 , c01 = 4.7141, c02 = 0.8468, c03 = 0.17451, c04 = 1.2972 and = 0.56.
Note that there is limited site information available for strong-motion stations in Taiwan so do not
consider local site effects.
Use strong-motion data from Central Weather Bureau from 1994 to 1998 because it is more numerous
and of better quality than older data.
Separate earthquakes into shallow crustal and subduction earthquakes because of different seismic attenuation and seismogenic situation for the two types of earthquake.
Shallow crustal earthquakes are mostly due to continental deformation, shallow collision or back-arc
opening or are the uppermost interface earthquakes. Focal depths depth between 1.1 and 43.7 km with
most shallower than 20 km. Most records from earthquakes with 4.5 Mw 6.0.
Subduction earthquakes are located in the Wadati-Benioff zone or the deep lateral collision zone and
are principally intraslab. Focal depth between 39.9 and 146.4 km.
Do not use records from earthquakes associated with coseismic rupture because they have complex
near-field source effects.
To avoid irregularly large amplitudes at great distances reject distant data predicted to be less than trigger
level plus 1 standard deviation using this threshold formula: aMw b ln D + c ln V , where V is
geometric mean of PGA equal to threshold plus 1 standard deviation. For shallow crustal earthquakes:
a = 0.64, b = 0.83, c = 2.56 and V = 6.93 and for subduction earthquakes: a = 0.76, b = 1.07,
c = 3.13 and V = 6.79.
For shallow crustal earthquakes examine effect of focal depth on seismic attenuation by finding geometric attenuation rate using epicentral distance, De , for earthquakes with 5 km depth intervals. Find
that deeper earthquakes have slower attenuation than shallow earthquakes. Therefore assume ground
motion, A, is product of fsource (source effects) and fgeometricalspreading (geometrical spreading ef(c c D )
fects) where fsource = C1 exp(c2 M )/Dpc3 and fgeometricalspreading = De 4 5 p where Dp is
focal depth.
For subduction earthquakes examine effect of focal depth in the same way as done for shallow crustal
earthquakes but find no effect of focal depth on attenuation rate. Therefore use fgeometricalspreading =
Dhc4 .
Plot residuals of both equations against distance and find no trend.
Note that it is important to separate subduction and shallow crustal earthquakes because of the different
role of focal depth and attenuation characteristics.
Plot residual maps of ground motion for Taiwan and find significant features showing the important
effect of local structures on ground motion.
13
2.12 Lussou et al. (2001)

log PSA(f ) = a(f )M + b(f )R log R + c(i, f )
where PSA(f ) is in cms2 , a(f ) = 3.71 101 , b(f ) = 2.54 103 , c(A, f ) = 0.617, c(B, f ) =
0.721, c(C, f ) = 0.845, c(D, f ) = 0.891 and = 3.13 101 .
Use four site categories, based on Vs,30 (average shear-wave velocity in top 30 m) as proposed in Eurocode 8:
A Vs,30 > 800 ms1 . Use c(A, f ). 14 records.
B 400 < Vs,30 800 ms1 . Use c(B, f ). 856 records.
C 200 < Vs,30 400 ms1 . Use c(C, f ). 1720 records.
D 100 < Vs,30 200 ms1 . Use c(D, f ). 421 records.
Good determination of site conditions between shear-wave velocities have been measured down to 10
to 20 m at every site. Extrapolate shear-wave velocity data to 30 m to find Vs,30 . Vs,30 at stations is
between about 50 ms1 and about 1150 ms1 .
Use data from Kyoshin network from 1996, 1997 and 1998.
All data from free-field sites.
No instrument correction needed or applied.
Use data from earthquakes with MJMA > 3.5 and focal depth < 20 km because want to compare
results with Ambraseys et al. (1996) and Boore et al. (1997). Also this criteria excludes data from deep
subduction earthquakes and data that is not significant for seismic hazard studies.
Homogeneous determination of JMA magnitude and hypocentral distance.
Roughly uniform distribution of records with magnitude and distance.
Assume pseudo-spectral acceleration for 5% damping at 0.02 s equals PGA.
Note equation valid for 3.5 MJMA 6.3 and 10 dh 200 km.
Find inclusion of site classification has reduced standard deviation.
2.13
Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) & Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002)

ln Y
= c1 + f1 (Mw ) + c4 ln
f2 (Mw , rseis , S) + f3 (F ) + f4 (S)
wheref1 (Mw ) = c2 Mw + c3 (8.5 Mw )
2
f2 (Mw , rseis , S) = rseis
+ g(S)2 (exp[c8 Mw + c9 (8.5 Mw )2 ])2
g(S) = c5 + c6 (SV F S + SSR ) + c7 SF R

f3 (F ) = c10 FRV + c11 FT H
f4 (S) = c12 SV F S + c13 SSR + c14 SF R
where Y is in g; for uncorrected horizontal PGA: c1 = 2.896, c2 = 0.812, c3 = 0.0, c4 = 1.318,
c5 = 0.187, c6 = 0.029, c7 = 0.064, c8 = 0.616, c9 = 0, c10 = 0.179, c11 = 0.307, c12 = 0.062,
c13 = 0.195, c14 = 0.320 and = c15 0.07Mw for Mw < 7.4 and = c15 0.518 for
14
Mw 7.4 where c15 = 1.028; for corrected horizontal PGA: c1 = 4.033, c2 = 0.812, c3 = 0.036,
c4 = 1.061, c5 = 0.041, c6 = 0.005, c7 = 0.018, c8 = 0.766, c9 = 0.034, c10 = 0.343,
c11 = 0.351, c12 = 0.123, c13 = 0.138, c14 = 0.289 and = c15 0.07Mw for Mw < 7.4
and = c15 0.518 for Mw 7.4 where c15 = 0.940; for uncorrected vertical PGA: c1 = 2.807,
c2 = 0.756, c3 = 0, c4 = 1.391, c5 = 0.191, c6 = 0.044, c7 = 0.014, c8 = 0.544, c9 = 0,
c10 = 0.091, c11 = 0.223, c12 = 0.096, c13 = 0.212, c14 = 0.199 and = c15 0.07Mw for
Mw < 7.4 and = c15 0.518 for Mw 7.4 where c15 = 1.107; and for corrected vertical PGA:
c1 = 3.108, c2 = 0.756, c3 = 0, c4 = 1.287, c5 = 0.142, c6 = 0.046, c7 = 0.040, c8 = 0.587,
c9 = 0, c10 = 0.253, c11 = 0.173, c12 = 0.135, c13 = 0.138, c14 = 0.256 and = c15 0.07Mw
for Mw < 7.4 and = c15 0.518 for Mw 7.4 where c15 = 1.051.
Use four site categories:
Firm soil Generally includes soil deposits of Holocene age (less than 11,000 years old) described on geological maps as recent alluvium, alluvial fans, or undifferentiated Quaternary deposits. Approximately corresponds to Vs,30 = 290 ms1 and NEHRP soil class D. Uncorrected PGA: 534 horizontal records and 525 vertical records and corrected PGA: 241 horizontal records and 240 vertical
records. SV F S = 0, SSR = 0 and SF R = 0.
Very firm soil Generally includes soil deposits of Pleistocene age (11,000 to 1.5 million years old) described
on geological maps as older alluvium or terrace deposits. Approximately corresponds to Vs,30 =
370 ms1 and NEHRP soil class CD. Uncorrected PGA: 168 horizontal records and 166 vertical
records and corrected PGA: 84 horizontal records and 83 vertical records. SV F S = 1, SSR = 0
and SF R = 0.
Soft rock Generally includes sedimentary rock and soft volcanic deposits of Tertiary age (1.5 to 100 million
years old) as well as softer units of the Franciscan Complex and other low-grade metamorphic rocks generally described as melange, serpentine and schist. Approximately corresponds to
Vs,30 = 420 ms1 and NEHRP soil class CD. Uncorrected PGA: 126 horizontal records and 124
vertical records and corrected PGA: 63 horizontal records and 62 vertical records. SSR = 1,
SV F S = 0 and SF R = 0.
Firm rock Generally include older sedimentary rocks and hard volcanic deposits, high-grade metamorphic
rock, crystalline rock and the harder units of the Franciscan Complex generally described as
sandstone, greywacke, shale, chert and greenstone. Approximately corresponds to Vs,30 = 800 ms1
and NEHRP soil class BC. Uncorrected PGA: 132 horizontal records and 126 vertical records and
corrected PGA: 55 horizontal records and 54 vertical records. SF R = 1, SV F S = 0 and SSR = 0.
Note that for generic soil (approximately corresponding to Vs,30 = 310 ms1 and NEHRP site class
D) use SV F S = 0.25, SSR = 0, SF R = 0 and for generic rock (approximately corresponding to
Vs,30 = 620 ms1 and NEHRP site class C) use SSR = 0.50, SF R = 0.50 and SV F S = 0.
Use three fault types:
Strike-slip Includes earthquakes on vertical or near-vertical faults with rake angles within 22.5 of the strike
of the fault. Also include 4 records from 1975 Oroville earthquake. Uncorrected PGA: 404 horizontal records and 395 vertical records and corrected PGA: 127 horizontal and vertical records.
FRV = 0 and FT H = 0
Reverse Steeply dipping earthquakes with rake angles between 22.5 and 157.5 . Uncorrected PGA: 186
horizontal records and 183 vertical records and corrected PGA: 58 horizontal records and 57
vertical records. FRV = 1 and FT H = 0.
Thrust Shallow dipping earthquakes with rake angles between 22.5 and 157.5 . Includes some blind
thrust earthquakes. Uncorrected PGA: 370 horizontal records and 363 vertical records and corrected PGA: 258 horizontal records and 255 vertical records. FT H = 1 and FRV = 0.
15
Note that for generic (unknown) fault type use FRV = 0.25 and FT H = 0.25.
Most records from 5.5 Mw 7.0.
Note that equations are an update to equations in Campbell (1997) because they used a somewhat
awkward and complicated set of ground motion models because there used a mixture of functional
forms. Consider that the new equations supersede their previous studies.
Uncorrected PGA refers to the standard level of accelerogram processing known as Phase 1. Uncorrected PGAs are either scaled directly from the recorded accelerogram or if the accelerogram was processed, from the baseline and instrument-corrected Phase 1 acceleration time-history.
Corrected PGA measured from the Phase 1 acceleration time-history after it had been band-pass filtered
and decimated to a uniform time interval.
Restrict data to within 60 km of seismogenic rupture zone (rseis 60 km) of shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions which have source and near-source attenuation similar to California.
Most data from California with some from Alaska, Armenia, Canada, Hawaii, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Turkey and Uzbekistan. Note some controversy whether this is true for all earthquakes
(e.g. Gazli and Nahanni). Exclude subduction-interface earthquakes.
Restrict earthquakes to those with focal depths < 25 km.
Restrict to rseis 60 km to avoid complications related to the arrival of multiple reflections from the
lower crust. Think that this distance range includes most ground-motion amplitudes of engineering
interest.
All records from free-field, which define as instrument shelters or non-embedded buildings < 3 storeys
high and < 7 storeys high if located on firm rock. Include records from dam abutments to enhance
the rock records even though there could be some interaction between dam and recording site. Exclude
records from toe or base of dam because of soil-structure interaction.
Do preliminary analysis, find coefficients in f3 need to be constrained in order to make Y independent on Mw at rseis = 0, otherwise Y exhibits oversaturation and decreases with magnitude at close
distances. Therefore set c8 = c2 /c4 and c9 = c3 /c4 .
Functional form permits nonlinear soil behaviour.
Do not include sediment depth (depth to basement rock) as a parameter even though analysis of residuals
indicated that it is an important parameter especially at long periods. Do not think its exclusion is a
serious practical limitation because sediment depth is generally not used in engineering analyses and
not included in any other widely used attenuation relation.
Do not apply weights during regression analysis because of the relatively uniform distribution of records
w.r.t. magnitude and distance.
To make regression analysis of corrected PGA more stable set c2 equal to value from better-constrained
regression of uncorrected PGAs.
Examine normalised residuals i = (ln Yi ln Y )/ln(Unc.PGA where ln Yi is the measured acceleration, Y is the predicted acceleration and ln(Unc.PGA is the standard deviation of the uncorrected PGA
equation. Plot i against magnitude and distance and find models are unbiased.
Consider equations valid for Mw 5.0 and rseis 60 km. Probably can be extrapolated to a distance
of 100 km without serious compromise.
16
Note that should use equations for uncorrected PGA if only an estimate of PGA is required because of
its statistical robustness. If want response spectra and PGA then should use corrected PGA equation
because the estimates are then consistent.
Note that should include ground motions from Kocaeli (17/8/1999, Mw = 7.4), Chi-Chi (21/9/1999,
Mw = 7.6), Hector Mine (16/10/1999, Mw = 7.1) and Duzce (12/11/1999, Mw = 7.1) earthquakes.
2.14
Gulkan & Kalkan (2002)

ln Y
= b1 + b2 (M 6) + b3 (M 6)2 + b5 ln r + bV ln(VS /VA )
2
where r = (rcl
+ h2 )1/2
where Y is in g, b1 = 0.682, b2 = 0.253, b3 = 0.036, b5 = 0.562, bV = 0.297, VA = 1381,

h = 4.48 and = 0.562.
Use three site categories:
Soft soil Average shear-wave velocity, VS , is 200 ms1 . 40 records.
Soil Average shear-wave velocity, VS , is 400 ms1 . 24 records.
Rock Average shear-wave velocity, VS , is 700 ms1 . 29 records.
Actual shear-wave velocities and detailed site descriptions are not available for most stations in Turkey.
Therefore estimate site classification by analogy with information in similar geologic materials. Obtain
type of geologic material in number of ways: consultation with geologists at Earthquake Research
Division of Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, various geological maps, past eartquake reports
and geological references prepared for Turkey.
Only used records from small earthquakes recorded at closer distances than large earthquakes to minimize the influence of regional differences in attenuation and to avoid the complex propagation effects
coming from longer distances.
Only use records from earthquakes with Mw & 5.0 to emphasize ground motions of engineering significance and to limit analysis to more reliably recorded earthquakes.
During regression lock magnitudes within 0.25 magnitude unit bands centred at halves or integer
magnitudes to eliminate errors coming from magnitude determination.
Note that use of epicentral distance for small earthquakes does not introduce significant bias because
dimensions of rupture area of small earthquakes are usually much smaller than distance to recording
stations.
Examine peak ground motions from the small number of normal- (14 records) and reverse-faulting (6
records) earthquakes in set and find that they were not significantly different from ground motions from
strike-slip earthquakes (73 records). Therefore combine all data.
Records mainly from small buildings built as meteorological stations up to three stories tall. Note that
this modifies the recorded accelerations and hence increases the uncertainty.
Exclude data from aftershocks (mainly of the Kocaeli and Duzce earthquakes) because it was from
free-field stations and did not want to mix it with the data from the non-free-field records.
Exclude a few records for which PGA of mainshock is . 0.04 g.
17
Note that there is limited data and the data is poorly distributed. Also note that there is near-total lack
of knowledge of local geology and that some of the records could be affected by the building in which
the instrument was housed.
More than half the records (49 records, 53% of total) are from two Mw > 7 earthquakes (Kocaeli and
Duzce) so the results are heavily based on the ground motions recorded in these two earthquakes.
2.15
Khademi (2002)

Y = C1 exp(C2 M )((R + C3 exp(C4 M ))C5 ) + C6 S
where Y is in g, C1 = 0.040311, C2 = 0.417342, C3 = 0.001, C4 = 0.65, C5 = 0.351119 and
C6 = 0.035852 for horizontal PGA and C1 = 0.0015, C2 = 0.8548, C3 = 0.001, C4 = 0.4,
C5 = 0.463 and C6 = 0.0006 for vertical PGA.
Uses two site categories:
S = 0 Rock, site categories I and II of Iranian building code.
S = 1 Soil, site categories III and IV of Iranian building code.
Selection criteria are: i) causative earthquake, earthquake fault (if known) and respective parameters
are determined with reasonable accuracy, ii) PGA of at least one component > 50 gal, iii) records from
free-field conditions or ground level of low-rise buildings ( three stories), iv) some aftershocks have
been eliminated to control effect of a few large earthquakes and v) records have been processed with
acceptable filter parameters.
Regresses directly on Y not on logarithm of Y . Therefore does not calculate standard deviation in
normal way. Considers the deviation of individual records from predictive equations as being PGA
dependent. Finds that a sigmoidal model fits the data well. Therefore Y = (ab + cxd )/(b + xd ) where
a = 0.038723, b = 0.00207, c = 0.29094 and d = 4.97132 for horizontal PGA and a = 0.00561,
b = 0.0164, c = 0.1648 and d = 1.9524 for vertical PGA 1 .
2.16
Margaris et al. (2002a) & Margaris et al. (2002b)

ln Y = c0 + c1 Mw + c2 ln(R + R0 ) + c3 S
where Y is in cms2 , c0 = 4.16, c1 = 0.69, c2 = 1.24, R0 = 6, c3 = 0.12 and = 0.70.
S = 0 NEHRP and UBC category B. 145 records.
S = 1 NEHRP and UBC category C. 378 records.
S = 2 NEHRP and UBC category D. 221 records.
Selection criteria are: a) earthquake has Mw 4.5, b) PGA 0.05 g and c) PGA < 0.05 g but another
record from same earthquake has PGA 0.05 g.
Records mainly from normal faulting earthquakes.
1
I do not know how to use this error model as it is not explained in the text of the paper.
18
Exclude data recorded in buildings with four stories or higher.

Automatically digitize records and process records homogenously, paying special attention to the filters
used.
Correlation between Mw and R in set of records used. For 4.5 Mw 5.0 records exist at R 40 km
and for larger magnitudes records exist at intermediate and long distances. For Mw > 6.0 there is a
lack of records for R < 20 km.
Use a two step regression method. In first step use all records to find c1 . In second step use records
from earthquakes with Mw 5.0 to find c0 , c2 and c3 .
Adopt R0 = 6 km because difficult to find R0 via regression due to its strong correlation with c2 . This
corresponds to average focal depth of earthquakes used.
Also try ground motion model: ln Y = c00 + c01 Mw + c02 ln(R2 + h20 )1/2 + c03 S. Coefficients are:
c00 = 3.52, c01 = 0.70, c02 = 1.14, h0 = 7 km (adopted), c03 = 0.12 and = 0.70.
Find no apparent trends in residuals w.r.t. distance.
Due to distribution of data, equations valid for 5 R 120 km and 4.5 Mw 7.0.
2.17
Schwarz et al. (2002)

log10 aH(V ) = c1 + c2 ML + c4 log10 (r) + cR SR + cA SA + cS SS
q
where r =
Re2 + h20
where aH(V ) is in g, c1 = 3.0815, c2 = 0.5161, c4 = 0.9501, cR = 0.1620, cA = 0.1078,
cS = 0.0355, h0 = 2.0 and = 0.3193 for horizontal PGA and c1 = 2.8053, c2 = 0.4858,
c4 = 1.1842, cR = 0.1932, cA = 0.0210, cS = 0.0253, h0 = 2.5 and = 0.3247 for vertical
PGA.
R Rock, subsoil classes A1, (A2) Vs > 800 ms1 (according to E DIN 4149) or subsoil class B
(rock) 760 < Vs 1500 ms1 (according to UBC 97). SR = 1, SA = 0, SS = 0. 59 records.
A Stiff soil, subsoil classes (A2), B2, C2 350 Vs 800 ms1 (according to E DIN 4149) or
subsoil class C (very dense soil and soft rock) 360 < Vs 760 ms1 (according to UBC 97).
SA = 1, SR = 0, SS = 0. 88 records.
S Soft soil, subsoil classes A3, B3, C3 Vs < 350 ms1 (according to E DIN 4149) or subsoil class
D (stiff clays and sandy soils) 180 < Vs 360 ms1 (according to UBC 97). SS = 1, SR = 0,
SA = 0. 536 records.
KOERI stations classified using UBC 97 and temporary stations of German TaskForce classified using
new German code E DIN 4149. Classify temporary stations of German TaskForce using microtremor
H/V spectral ratio measurements by comparing shapes of H/V spectral ratios from microtremors to
theoretical H/V spectral ratios as well as with theoretical transfer functions determined for idealized
subsoil profiles.
Use Kocaeli aftershock records from temporary German TaskForce stations (records from earthquakes
with 1 . ML < 4.9 and distances Re < 70 km, 538 records) and from mainshock and aftershocks
records from Kandilli Observatory (KOERI) stations (4.8 ML 7.2 and distances 10 Re
250 km, 145 records).
19
Visually inspect all time-histories and only use those thought to be of sufficiently good quality.
Baseline correct all records.
Use technique of Ambraseys et al. (1996) to find the site coefficients cR , cA and cS , i.e. use residuals
from regression without considering site classification.
Note that equations may not be reliable for rock and stiff soil sites due to the lack of data and that
equations probably only apply for 2 ML 5 due to lack of data from large magnitude earthquakes.
2.18
Stamatovska (2002)

ln PGA = b0 + bM M + bR ln
"
R 2
e
#1/2
+ h2
+C
where PGA is in cms2 . For Bucharest azimuth b0 = 0.21056, bM = 1.29099, bR = 0.80404,

C = 40 and = 0.52385, for Valeni azimuth b0 = 1.52412, bM = 1.42459, bR = 0.70275,
C = 40 and = 0.51389 and for Cherna Voda b0 = 4.16765, bM = 1.11724, bR = 1.44067, C = 40
and = 0.47607.
Focal depths, h, between 89 and 131 km.
Incomplete data on local site conditions so not included in study.
Some strong-motion records are not from free-field locations.
Uses to characterise the non-homogeneity of region. Includes effect of instrument location w.r.t. the
main direction of propagation
p of seismic energy, as well as the non-homogeneous attenuation in two
orthogonal directions. = (1 + tg 2 )/(a2 + tg 2 ) where is angle between instrument and main
direction of seismic energy or direction of fault projection on surface and a is parameter defining the
non-homogeneous attenuation in two orthogonal directions, or relation between the semi-axes of the
ellipse of seismic field.
Uses a two step method. In first step derive equations for each earthquake using ln PGA = b00 +
b1 ln(Re /). In the second step the complete ground motion model is found by normalizing separately
for each earthquake with a value of defined for that earthquake according to the location for which the
equation was defined.
Notes that there is limited data so coefficients could be unreliable.
Strong-motion records processed by different institutions.
2.19 Tromans & Bommer (2002)

log y = C1 + C2 Ms + C4 log r + CA SA + CS SS
q
where r =
d2 + h20
where y is in cms2 , C1 = 2.080, C2 = 0.214, h0 = 7.27, C4 = 1.049, CA = 0.058, CS = 0.085
and = 0.27.
20
S Soft soil, Vs,30 360 ms1 . SS = 1, SA = 0. 25% of records.

A Stiff soil, 360 < Vs,30 < 750 ms1 . SA = 1, SS = 0. 50% of records.
R Rock, Vs,30 750 ms1 . SS = 0, SA = 0. 25% of records.
If no Vs,30 measurements at station then use agency classifications.
Supplement dataset of Bommer et al. (1998) with 66 new records using same selection criteria as Bommer et al. (1998) with a lower magnitude limit of Ms = 5.5. Remove 3 records from Bommer et al.
(1998) with no site classifications.
Roughly uniform distribution of records w.r.t. magnitude and distance. New data contributes significantly to large magnitude and near-field ranges.
Correct records using an elliptical filter selecting an appropriate low-frequency cut-off, fL , individually
for each record using the criterion of Bommer et al. (1998).
Plot PGA against fL for two pairs of horizontal components of ground motion from the BOL and DZC
stations from the Duzce earthquake (12/11/1999). Record from BOL was recorded on a GSR-16 digital
accelerograph and that from DZC was recorded on a SMA-1 analogue accelerograph. Find PGA is
stable for low-frequency cut-offs up to at least 0.4 Hz for the selected records.
2.20
Zonno & Montaldo (2002)

log10 (Y ) = a + bM + c log10 (R2 + h2 )1/2 + e
where Y is in g, a = 1.632, b = 0.304, c = 1, h = 2.7, e = 0 and = 0.275.
Use two site categories:
Soil Vs,30 750 ms1 , = 0.
Rock Vs,30 > 750 ms1 , = 1.
Note that amount of data available for the Umbria-Marche area in central Italy is sufficiently large to
perform statistical analysis at regional scale.
Focal depths between 2 and 8.7 km. Exclude data from an earthquake that occurred at 47 km.
Select only records from earthquakes with ML 4.5 recorded at less than 100 km.
Exclude data from Nocera Umbra station because it shows a strong amplification effect due to the
presence of a sub-vertical fault and to highly fractured rocks.
Uniformly process records using BAP (Basic strong-motion Accelerogram Processing software). Instrument correct records and band-pass filter records using a high-cut filter between 23 and 28 Hz and a
bi-directional Butterworth low-cut filter with corner frequency of 0.4 Hz and rolloff parameter of 2.
Note that can use ML because it does not saturate until about 6.5 and largest earthquake in set is
ML = 5.9.
More than half of records are from earthquakes with ML 5.5.
State that equations should not be used for ML > 6 because of lack of data.
Use similar regression method as Ambraseys et al. (1996) to find site coefficient, e.
3. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ADDITIONAL ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR

PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Table 3.1 gives the general characteristics of published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration. The
columns are:
H Number of horizontal records (if both horizontal components are used then multiply by two to get total
number)
V Number of vertical components
E Number of earthquakes
Mmin Magnitude of smallest earthquake
Mmax Magnitude of largest earthquake
M scale Magnitude scale (scales in brackets refer to those scales which the main M values were sometimes
converted from, or used without conversion, when no data existed), where:
mb Body-wave magnitude
MC Chinese surface wave magnitude
MCL Coda length magnitude
MD Duration magnitude
MJMA Japanese Meteorological Agency magnitude
ML Local magnitude
MbLg Magnitude calculated using Lg amplitudes on short-period, vertical seismographs
Ms Surface-wave magnitude
Mw Moment magnitude
dmin Shortest source-to-site distance
dmax Longest source-to-site distance
d scale Distance measure, where:
dc Distance to rupture centroid
de Epicentral distance
dE Distance to energy centre
df Distance to projection of rupture plane on surface (Joyner & Boore, 1981)
dh Hypocentral (or focal) distance
dq Equivalent hypocentral distance (EHD) (Ohno et al., 1993)
dr Distance to rupture plane
ds Distance to seismogenic rupture plane (assumes near-surface rupture in sediments is non-seismogenic)
(Campbell, 1997)
3. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration
22
S Number of different site conditions modelled, where:

C Continuous classification
I Individual classification for each site
C Use of the two horizontal components of each accelerogram, where:
B Both components
C Randomly chosen component
G Geometric mean
L Larger component
M Mean (not stated what type)
O Randomly oriented component
R Resolved component
U Unknown
V Vectorially resolved component, i.e. square root of sum of squares of the two components
R Regression method used, where:
1 Ordinary one-stage
1B Bayesian one-stage
1M Maximum likelihood one-stage (Joyner & Boore, 1993)
1W Weighted one-stage
2 Two-stage (Joyner & Boore, 1981)
2M Maximum likelihood two-stage (Joyner & Boore, 1993)
2W Two-stage with second staged weighted as described in Joyner & Boore (1988)
O Other (see section referring to study)
U Unknown
M Source mechanisms (and tectonic type) of earthquakes (letters in brackets refer to those mechanism
which are separately modelled), where:
A All (this is assumed if no information is given in the reference)
B Interslab
F Interface
I Intraplate
N Normal
O Oblique
R Reverse
S Strike-slip
T Thrust
+ refers to extra records from outside region used to supplement data. (. . . ) refer either to magnitudes
of supplementing records or to those used for part of analysis. * means information is approximate because
either read from graph or found in another way.
3011
4436
3011
4397
47204 ,
25285
102
368
454 ,
195
103
5
20*
47*
33
297
76
E
25
U
31*
6.3
7.7
7.04 , 6.35
7.4
7.2
4.3*
7.4
5.9
7.7
7.7
Mmax
8.0
5.81
7.3
continued on next page
3.7
4.7
4.14 , 4.65
4.33
5.7
1.3*
2.7
2.8
1.7
5.0
Mmin
5.2
U
5.1
820
200+
375
dmax
300
U
312
4*
2*
04 ,
40.25
4
4
dh
ds
600*
60*
264.44 , de 4 , dh 5
272.45
1
1
4
9,
3
dh
df or de
S
1
1
1
df , de
d scale
U
df
dc or dh
33.15 340.97 dh
3*
66*
dh
4
224
dh (dr for
2)
113
3503 dh
Ms
Usually
ML
for
M 6.5
and Ms for
M > 6.5
Mw (mb ,
ML , Ms )
mb
MD
Mw (Ms ,
mb , ML )
Ms if ML
& Ms >
6, ML otherwise
Mw
(ML
for
ML < 6.5)
MJMA
Mw
dmin
80*
U
13
M scale
ML
U
Mw
This is Ms .
Also derive equations for Australia and N. E. China
Assuming they use same data as Monguilner et al. (2000b).
Shallow crustal records.
Subduction records.
There are 960 components for uncorrected PGA.
There are 941 components for uncorrected PGA.
For horizontal corrected records. There are 49 for horizontal uncorrected PGA. There are 34 for vertical corrected records and 46 for vertical uncorrected PGA.
Japan
Worldwide
Lussou et al. (2001)

Campbell & Bozorgnia
(2002) & Bozorgnia &
Campbell (2002)
Taiwan
Chang et al. (2001)
W. Argentina
Monguilner
(2000a)
1926
543
Himalayas
Friuli
Iran
Singh et al. (1996)

Costa et al. (1998)
Zare et al. (1999)
al.
77
E. N. America2
Sarma & Free (1995)
et
1926
W. N. America
80*
468
947
Worldwide
V
-
86
80*
468
H
25
U
256
Area
Papua New Guinea
Iceland
New Zealand
Reference
Denham et al. (1973)
Sigbjornsson (1990)
McVerry et al. (1993)
& McVerry et al.
(1995)
Ambraseys & Srbulov
(1994)
Lee et al. (1995)
Tab. 3.1: Characteristics of published peak ground acceleration relations
B
G
U
U
B
C
U
U
L
2
1
1W
1
1
2M
2W
R
1
U
1
A
A (S & N,
R, T)
A
A
R, RS & S
M
A
A
A, R

23
10
744
683
19010
249
161
N.W. Turkey
Romania
Europe
Umbria-Marche
160
Iran
Greece
H
939
Area
Turkey
683
-
160
V
-
15
U
4
51
142
28*
E
19
4.5
0.9*
6.1
5.5
4.5
3.4*
Mmin
4.5
This is total number of horizontal components used. They come from 47 triaxial records.
This is total number of components. Does not need to be multiplied by two.
Margaris et al. (2002a)

& Margaris et al.
(2002b)
Stamatovska (2002)
Tromans & Bommer
(2002)
Zonno & Montaldo
(2002)
Reference
Gulkan & Kalkan
(2002)
Khademi (2002)
5.9
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.0
7.4
Mmax
7.4
Tab. 3.1: continued

dmin
1.20
0.1*
0*
10*
1
2*
M scale
Mw
Mw (mb
for Ms < 5
and
Ms
otherwise)
Mw
ML
U
Ms
ML
100*
250*
310*
359
150
180*
dmax
150
de
3
1
3
de
de
de
df
S
3
df , de for
M < 5.9
d scale
df , de
U
B
L
C
L,
R
L
1
1
2
R
1
N, O
A
A
A
M
A

24
4. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL PUBLISHED ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR

SPECTRAL ORDINATES
4.1
Trifunac (1977)
log10 [SA(T ), p] = M + log10 A0 (R) a(T )p b(T )M c(T ) d(T )s e(T )v f (T )M 2 g(T )R
where log A0 (R) is an empirically determined attenuation function from Richter (1958) used for calculation of ML , p is confidence level and v is component direction (v = 0 for horizontal and 1 for
vertical). log A0 (R) not given here due to lack of space.
Uses three site categories:
s = 0 Alluvium. 63% of data.
s = 1 Intermediate. 23% of data.
s = 2 Basement rock. 8% of data.
Response is acceleration for 0, 2, 5, 10 and 20% damping.
Equation constrained to interval Mmin M Mmax where Mmin = b(T )/2f (T ) and Mmax =
[1 b(T )]/2f (T ). For M > Mmax replace f (T )M 2 by f (T )(M Mmax )2 and for M < Mmin
replace M by Mmin everywhere to right of log10 A0 (R).
Uses almost same data as Trifunac (1976).
Uses same regression method as Trifunac (1976).
Does not give coefficients, only graphs of coefficients.
Notes that results only preliminary.
4.2
Trifunac (1978)
Ground motion model is (from definition of local magnitude scale):
log[PSV(T ),p ] = M + log A0 (R) a(T )p b(T )M c(T ) d(T )s e(T )v f (T )M 2 g(T )R
where log A0 (R) is an empirically determined attenuation function from Richter (1958) used for calculation of ML , p is confidence level and v is component direction (v = 0 for horizontal and 1 for
vertical). log A0 (R) not given here due to lack of space.
Response parameter is pseudo-velocity for 0, 2, 5, 10 and 20% damping in inch/s.
Uses three site categories:
s = 0 Alluvium. 63% of data.
26
s = 1 Intermediate. 23% of data. Notes that ideally would not need but had to be introduced because in
some cases difficult to make a choice in complex geological environment or because of insufficient
data.
s = 2 Basement rock. 8% of data.
Uses almost same data as Trifunac (1976).
Uses same regression method as Trifunac (1976).
Equation constrained to interval Mmin M Mmax where Mmin = b(T )/2f (T ) and Mmax =
[1 b(T )]/2f (T ). For M > Mmax replace M by Mmax everywhere and for M < Mmin replace
M by Mmin in b(T )M and f (T )M 2 . This gives linear growth for M < Mmin , parabolic growth for
Mmin M Mmax and constant amplitude for M > Mmax .
98 records from San Fernando earthquake (9/2/1971) but regression method eliminated 70% of these
before computing the coefficients.
Epicentral distance used for simplicity, consistency with earlier studies and for lack of significantly
better choice. Distance measure chosen has small effect whenever epicentral distance greater than
several source dimensions.
Notes that recording and processing noise in signal means that quality of coefficients diminishes for T >
2 s. Equations not recommended for periods longer than those for which selected spectral amplitudes
plotted.
Notes that equations should be considered only as preliminary and an empirical approximation to a
complicated physical problem.
Notes that data are limited to narrow magnitude interval, most data comes from alluvium sites and about
half comes from one earthquake.
4.3
Trifunac & Anderson (1978)

log10 PSV(T ) = M + log10 A0 (R) log10 PSV0 (M, . . .)
where log A0 (R) is an empirically determined attenuation function from Richter (1958) used for calculation of ML .
Use three site classifications:
s = 0 Sediments.
s = 2 Basement rock sites.
4.4
Trifunac & Lee (1979)

log10 PSV(T ) = M + log10 A0 (R) b(T )M c(T ) d(T )h e(T )v f (T )M 2 g(T )R
where log A0 (R) is an empirically determined attenuation function from Richter (1958) used for calculation of ML and v is component direction (v = 0 for horizontal 1 for vertical).
Use depth of sedimentary deposits, h, to characterise local geology.
4.5
27
Trifunac & Lee (1985)

Ground motion models are (if define site in terms of local geological site classification):
log PSV(T ) = M + Att(, M, T ) + b1 (T )M + b2 (T )s + b3 (T )v + b4 (T ) + b5 (T )M 2
or (if define site in terms of depth of sediment):
log PSV(T ) = M + Att(, M, T ) + b1 (T )M + b2 (T )h + b3 (T )v + b4 (T ) + b5 (T )M 2
where

A0 (T ) log10
A0 (T ) log10 max (R Rmax )/200

1/2
R2 + H 2 + S 2
= S ln 2
R + H 2 + S02
max = (Rmax , H, S)
p
1
Rmax =
( + 2 4H 2 )
2
Att(, M, T ) =
for
for
R Rmax
R > Rmax
S0 = S0 (T ) represents the coherence radius of the source and can be approximated by S0 Cs T /2,
Cs is shear-wave velocity in source region (taken to be 1 kms1 ), T is period, S is source dimension
approximated by S = 0.2 for M < 3 and S = 25.34 + 8.151M for 3 M 7.25 and v is
component direction (v = 0 for horizontal 1 for vertical).
Use two types of site parameter:
Local geological site classification:
s = 0 Sites on sediments.
s = 2 Sites on basement rock.
Depth of sediments from surface to geological basement rock beneath site, h.
4.6
Kamiyama (1989)
log10 V () = log10 M0 a() log10 r + b() log10 L + e()r + c() +
N
1
X
Aj ()Sj
j=1
where Sj = 1 for site j and Sj = 0 otherwise.

Response parameter is velocity for 0% damping.
Uses same data as Kamiyama & Yanagisawa (1986).
Uses same regression method as Kamiyama & Yanagisawa (1986).
Focal depths between 0 and 130 km.
Uses fault length, L, for 52
records. For others where such data does not exist uses M0 = 10(1.5 log10 S+22.3) ,
p
S = 10M 4.07 and L = S/2 where S is fault area in km2 .
Chooses hard slate site with shear-wave velocity of 12 kms1 as basic site.
4.7
28
Dahle et al. (1991)

ln A = c1 + c2 M + c4 R + ln G(R, R0 )
where G(R, R0 ) = R1
and: G(R, R0 ) = R01
R R0
5/6
R0
for
R
for

R > R0
this equation assumes spherical spreading (S waves) to R0 and cylindrical spreading with dispersion
(Lg waves) for larger distances.
Response parameter is pseudo-velocity for 5% damping.
All data from solid rock sites.
Follow-on study to Dahle et al. (1990b) and Dahle et al. (1990a) but remove Chinese and Friuli data
and data from border zone of Eurasian plate, so data is a more genuine intraplate set.
Use 395 records from Norwegian digital seismograms. Require that the Lg displacement amplitude
spectra should have a signal-to-noise ratio of a least 4 in the frequency range 110 Hz, when compared
to the noise window preceding the P-wave arrival.
For the selected seismograms the following procedure was followed. Select an Lg window, starting at
a manually picked arrival time and with a length that corresponds to a group velocity window between
2.6 and 3.6 kms1 . Apply a cosine tapering bringing the signal level down to zero over a length corresponding to 5% of the data window. Compute a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Correct for instrument
response to obtain true ground motion displacement spectra. Bandpass filter the spectra to avoid unreasonable amplification of spectral estimates outside the main response of the instruments. Passband was
between 0.8 Hz and 15 or 20 Hz,
dependent on sampling rate. The amplitude spectra obtained using the
direct method, using A = t ZZ where t is time step and Z is Fourier transformed time-history
and Z is its complex conjugate. Convert instrument corrected displacement Lg Fourier transforms to
acceleration by double differentiation and an inverse FFT.
Use 31 accelerograms from eastern N. America, N. Europe and Australia.
Use R0 = 100 km although note that R0 may be about 200 km in Norway.
Correlation in magnitude-distance space is 0.20.
Use a variant of the two-stage method to avoid an over-representation of the magnitude scaling terms at
small magnitudes. Compute average magnitude scaling coefficients within cells of 0.2 magnitude units
before the second stage.
Resample data to make sure all the original data is used in a variant of the one-stage method. Compute
new (resampled) data points as the average of one or more original points within a grid of cells 160 km
by 0.4 magnitude units. Correlation in resampled magnitude-distance space is 0.10.
Find estimated ground motions from one-stage method systematically higher than those from two-stage
method particularly at short distances and large magnitudes. Effect more significant for low frequencies.
Find that this is because one-stage method gives more weight to supplementary accelerograph data from
near field of large earthquakes.
Standard deviations similar for one- and two-stage equations.
Scatter in magnitude scaling coefficients from first stage of two-stage method is greater for strongmotion data.
29
Try fixing the anelastic decay coefficient (c4 ) using a previous studys results. Find almost identical
results.
Remove 1 record from Nahanni earthquake (Ms = 6.9) and recompute; only a small effect.
Remove 17 records from Saguenay earthquake (Ms = 5.8) and recompute; find significant effect for
large magnitudes but effect within range of variation between different regression methods.
4.8
Lee & Trifunac (1995)

Based on Lee et al. (1995). See Section 2.5.
Response parameter is pseudo-velocity for 5% damping (also use 0, 2, 10 and 20% damping but do not
report results).
Before regression, smooth the actual response spectral amplitudes along the log10 T axis to remove the
oscillatory (erratic) nature of spectra.
State that for small earthquakes (M 3) equations only valid up to about 1 s because recorded spectra
are smaller than recording noise for longer periods.
Only give coefficients for 0.04, 0.06, 0.10, 0.17, 0.28, 0.42, 0.70, 1.10, 1.90, 3.20, 4.80 and 8.00 s but
give graphs for rest.
Assume that distribution of residuals from last step can be described by probability function:
p(, T ) = [1 exp( exp((T ) + (T )))]n(T )
[ ) (T ), n(T ) = min[10, [25/T ]], [25/T ]
where p(, T ) is probability that log PSV(T ) log PSV(T
is integral part of 25/T . Arrange residuals in increasing order and assign an actual probability of no
exceedance, p (, T ) depending on its relative order. Estimate (T ) and (T ) by least-squares fit of
ln( ln(1 p1/n(T ) )) = (T )(T ) + (T ). Test quality of fit between p(, T ) and p (, T ) by 2
and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. For some periods the 2 test rejects the fit at the 95% level but the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test accepts it.
4.9
Molas & Yamazaki (1996)

Based on Molas & Yamazaki (1995), see Section 2.88 of Douglas (2001).
Response parameters are absolute acceleration and relative velocity for 5% damping.
4.10
Monguilner et al. (2000b)

log SA (T ) = A(, T ) + M + b1 (T ) + b2 (T )M + b3 (T )s + b4 (T )v + b5 (T )M 2 + ep (i)
1
where A(DE, H, S, T ) = A0 (T ) log (DE, H, M ), = (DE2 +H 2 +S 2 ) 2 , H is focal depth, p is the

confidence level, s is from site classification (details not given in paper) and v is component direction
(details not given in paper although probably v = 0 for horizontal direction and v = 1 for vertical
direction).
Response parameter is pseudo-acceleration for unknown damping level.
Use same data and weighting method as Monguilner et al. (2000a) (see Section 2.10).
30
Find A0 (T ) by regression of the Fourier amplitude spectra of the strong-motion records.

Estimate fault area, S, using log S = Ms + 8.13 0.6667 log(/).
Equation only valid for Mmin M Mmax where Mmin = b2 /(2b5 (T )) and Mmax = (1 +
b2 (T ))/(2b5 (T )). For M < Mmin use M for second term and M = Mmin elsewhere. For M > Mmax
use M = Mmax everywhere.
0 (T ) where S 0 (T ) is the observed pseudo-acceleration
Examine residuals, (T ) = log SA (T ) log SA
R A
and fit to the normal probability distribution, p(, T ) = exp[(x (T ))/(T )]2 /((T ) 2), to
find (T ) and (T ). Find that the residuals fit the theoretical probably distribution at the 5% level using
the 2 and KS1 tests.
Do not give coefficients, only graphs of coefficients.
4.11
Lussou et al. (2001)
See Section 2.12.

Response parameter is pseudo-acceleration for 5% damping.
4.12
Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) & Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002)
See Section 2.13.

Response parameter is pseudo-acceleration for 5% damping.
To make regression analysis more stable set c2 equal to value from better-constrained regression of
uncorrected PGAs.
Do limited amount of smoothing of regression coefficients to reduce the considerable amount of periodto-period variability in the regression coefficients that caused variability in predicted pseudo-acceleration
especially for small distances and large magnitudes.
4.13
Gulkan & Kalkan (2002)
See Section 2.14.

Response parameter is acceleration for 5% damping.
4.14
Khademi (2002)
See Section 2.15.

4.15
Manic (2002)

log PSV(T ) = c1 (T ) + c2 (T )M + c3 (T ) log(R) + c4 (T )SA
where R = (d2 + d20 )1/2
1
Probably this is Kolmogorov-Smirnov.
31
Response parameter is pseudo-velocity for 5% damping,

Uses two site categories:
SA = 0 Rock, Vs,30 > 750 ms1 .
SA = 1 Stiff soil, 360 < Vs,30 750 ms1 .
Soft soil sites (Vs 360 ms1 ) do not exist in set of records.
Use technique of Ambraseys et al. (1996) to find the site coefficient c4 (T ), i.e. use residuals from
regression without considering site classification.
Derives separate equations for Ms and ML and for df and de .
4.16
See Section 2.17.

4.17
See Section 2.20.

Response parameter is pseudo-velocity for 5% damping.
5. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ADDITIONAL ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR

SPECTRAL ORDINATES
Table 5.1 gives the general characteristics of published attenuation relations for spectral ordinates. The
columns are the same as in Table 3.1 with three extra columns:
T s Number of periods for which attenuation equations are derived
Tmin Minimum period for which attenuation equation is derived
Tmax Maximum period for which attenuation equation is derived
228
443
Worldwide
3011
Japan
Lussou et al.
(2001)
Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002)
&
Bozorgnia
&
Campbell
(2002)
439
3011
54
1926
3.7
4.7
362
4.3
4.1
1.7
2.4*(4.1)
4.1
3.0
Mmin
U
102
10
387
297
136+11
104
57
E
U
Consider more than 4 natural periods but results not reported.

For horizontal corrected records. There are 34 for vertical corrected records.
54
W.
Argentina
Monguilner
et al. (2000b)
2166
Japan
1926
395+31
438
438
N.
N.
187
V
186
187
H
186
N.
N.
N.
Intraplate
(particularly
Norway)
W.
N.
America
Area
W.
America
W.
America
W.
America
W.
America
W.
America
Japan
Molas & Yamazaki (1996)
Lee & Trifunac

(1995)
Trifunac & Anderson (1978)

Trifunac & Lee
(1979)
Trifunac & Lee
(1985)
Kamiyama
(1989)
Dahle et al.
(1991)
Trifunac (1978)
Reference
Trifunac (1977)
1000* dr
for
2
earthquakes, dh
otherwise
350 dh
600* dh
Mw
Ms if ML
& Ms >
6, ML otherwise
MJMA
2*
4*
11
8*
60*
ds
9,
3
de
200+ dh
Usually
ML
for
M 6.5
and Ms for
M > 6.5
MJMA
350
1
3,
C
I
dh
20* 1200* dh
(9.7) (1300)
de
Ms
(ML ,MCL )
de
de
S
3
MJMA
dmax d scale
U
de
dmin
U
M scale
U
continued on next page
7.7
6.3
7.4
7.8
7.7
5.2*(6.9)
7.9
7.7
Mmax
U
Tab. 5.1: Characteristics of published spectral relations
0.1
0.04
14
63
0.05
0.02
200 0.1
12
91
10
15
0.1
41
15
15
0.05* 10*
0.04
0.04
0.04* 15*
Tmin Tmax
0.04* 15*
91
91
Ts
U
C
U
1W
R
O
A (S & N,
R, T)
M
A
5. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for spectral ordinates

33
683
683
161
15
19
28*
E
19
4.5
0.9*
4.0
4.2
3.4*
Mmin
4.5
and
5.9
7.2
6.9
7.0
7.4
and
Mmax
7.4
This is total number of horizontal components used. They come from 47 triaxial records.
This is total number of components. Does not need to be multiplied by two.
N.W.
Turkey
UmbriaMarche
Schwarz et al.
(2002)
77
1534
Former Yugoslavia
160
160
Iran
V
-
H
933
Area
Turkey
Manic (2002)
Reference
Gulkan
&
Kalkan (2002)
Khademi (2002)
ML
ML
0.1*
Mw (mb
for Ms < 5
and
Ms
otherwise)
Ms
and
ML
2*
0
and
0
0*
dmin
1.20
M scale
Mw
Tab. 5.1: continued
100* de
110 df and de
and
150
250* de
180* df , de for
M < 5.9
dmax d scale
150 df , de
S
3
14
11
14
13
Ts
46
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.05
Tmin
0.1
Tmax
2
C
L,
R
L
R
1
N, O
M
A
5. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for spectral ordinates

34
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by EPSRC grant no. GR/L87385 and no. GR/52114/01(P) and EC grant no.
EVR1-CT-1999-40008; I thank both funding agencies for their support. I thank Prof. N.N. Ambraseys, Dr J.J.
Bommer, Dr P.M. Smit, Anna Baba, Julian Garcia-Mayordomo, Marco Pagani, Jorge Prieto-Salazar, Carlos
Rodriguez, Tizi Rossetto and Iain Tromans for references and their enthusiasm towards the original report.
Also I thank Dr A. Dahle for sending me a copy of Dahle et al. (1991), Dr K. W. Campbell for sending me
a copy of Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) and Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002), Dr G. Costa for giving me a
copy of Costa et al. (1998), Dr M. Zare for sending me a copy of Zare et al. (1999), Mr C. Ende for sending
me a copy of the poster for Schwarz et al. (2002) and Miss V. Montaldo for sending me a copy of Zonno &
Montaldo (2002).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ambraseys, N. 1975a. Ground motions in the near field of small-magnitude earthquakes. Pages 113136 of:
Proceedings of the Commission on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, Organisation of Economic Cooperation in Europe, vol. 1. Not seen. Reported in Ambraseys (1978).
Ambraseys, N., & Douglas, J. 2000 (Aug). Reappraisal of the effect of vertical ground motions on response.
ESEE Report 00-4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London.
Ambraseys, N. N. 1975b. Trends in engineering seismology in Europe. Pages 3952 of: Proceedings of Fifth
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 3.
Ambraseys, N. N. 1978. Middle East a reappraisal of seismicity. The Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, 11(1), 1932.
Ambraseys, N. N., & Douglas, J. 2002. Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. In press.
Ambraseys, N. N., & Srbulov, M. 1994. Attenuation of earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23(5), 467487.
Ambraseys, N. N., Bommer, J. J., & Sarma, S. K. 1992 (Nov). A review of seismic ground motions for UK
design. ESEE Report 92-8. Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London.
Ambraseys, N. N., Simpson, K. A., & Bommer, J. J. 1996. Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(4), 371400.
Bommer, J. J., Elnashai, A. S., Chlimintzas, G. O., & Lee, D. 1998 (Mar). Review and development of response
spectra for displacement-based seismic design. ESEE Report 98-3. Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London.
Boore, D. M. 1983. Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models
of the radiated spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73(6), 18651894.
Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., & Fumal, T. E. 1997. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and
peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work. Seismological
Research Letters, 68(1), 128153.
Bozorgnia, Y., & Campbell, K. W. 2002. Vertical-to-horizontal response spectral ratio and the vertical design
spectrum. Earthquake spectra, Feb. Submitted.
Campbell, K. W. 1997. Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components
of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 154179.
Campbell, K. W., & Bozorgnia, Y. 1994. Empirical analysis of strong motion from the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(3), 573588.
Campbell, K. W., & Bozorgnia, Y. 2002. Mutually consistent near-source attenuation relations for the horizontal and vertical components of PGA and acceleration response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America. Submitted.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
37
Chang, T.-Y., Cotton, F., & Angelier, J. 2001. Seismic attenuation and peak ground acceleration in Taiwan.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91(5), 12291246.
Chiaruttini, C., & Siro, L. 1981. The correlation of peak ground horizontal acceleration with magnitude,
distance, and seismic intensity for Friuli and Ancona, Italy, and the Alpide belt. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 71(6), 19932009.
Costa, G., Suhadolc, P., & Panza, G. F. 1998. The Friuli (NE Italy) Accelerometric Network: Analysis of
low-magnitude high-quality digital accelerometric data for seismological and engineering applications. In:
Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Dahle, A., Bugum, H., & Kvamme, L. B. 1990a. Attenuation modelling based on intraplate earthquake
recordings. Pages 121129 of: Proceedings of Ninth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
vol. 4-A.
Dahle, A., Bungum, H., & Kvamme, L. B. 1990b. Attenuation models inferred from intraplate earthquake
recordings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19(8), 11251141.
Dahle, A., Bungum, H., & Kvamme, L. B. 1991. Empirically derived PSV spectral attenuation models for
intraplate conditions. European Earthquake Engineering, 3, 4252.
Denham, D., & Small, G. R. 1971. Strong motion data centre: Bureau of mineral resources, Canada. Bulletin
of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), 1530.
Denham, D., Small, G. R., & Everingham, I.B. 1973. Some strong-motion results from Papua New Guinea
19671972. Pages 23242327 of: Proceedings of Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol.
2.
Douglas, J. 2001 (Jan). A comprehensive worldwide summary of strong-motion attenuation relationships for
peak ground acceleration and spectral ordinates (1969 to 2000). ESEE Report 01-1. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London.
Esteva, L. 1974. Geology and probability in the assessment of seismic risk. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference of the Association of Engineering Geology. Not seen. Reported in Ambraseys
(1978).
Esteva, L., & Villaverde, R. 1973. Seismic risk, design spectra and structural reliability. Pages 25862596 of:
Proceedings of Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2.
Gulkan, P., & Kalkan, E. 2002. Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey. Journal of Seismology,
6(3), 397409.
Huo, J., & Hu, Y. 1991. Attenuation laws considering the randomness of magnitude and distance. Earthquake
Research in China, 5(1), 1736.
Joyner, W. B., & Boore, D. M. 1981. Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records
including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 71(6), 20112038.
Joyner, W. B., & Boore, D. M. 1988. Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion.
Pages 43102 of: Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics II. Geotechnical Division,
ASCE.
Joyner, W. B., & Boore, D. M. 1993. Methods for regression analysis of strong-motion data. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 83(2), 469487.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
38
Joyner, W. B., & Fumal, T. E. 1984. Use of measured shear-wave velocity for predicting geologic site effects
on strong ground motion. Pages 777783 of: Proceedings of Eighth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, vol. II.
Joyner, W. B., & Fumal, T. E. 1985. Predictive mapping of earthquake ground motion. Pages 203220
of: Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region An Earth Science Perspective. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper, no. 1360. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Kamiyama, M. 1989 (Oct). Regression analyses of strong-motion spectra in terms of a simplified faulting
source model. Pages 113126 of: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering.
Kamiyama, M., & Yanagisawa, E. 1986. A statisical model for estimating response spectra of strong earthquake ground motions with emphasis on local soil conditions. Soils and Foundations, 26(2), 1632.
Khademi, M. H. 2002 (Sep). Attenuation of peak and spectral accelerations in the Persian plateau. In:
Proceedings of Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper reference 330.
Lawson, R. S., & Krawinkler, H. 1994. Cumulative damage potential of seismic ground motion. Pages
10791086 of: Proceedings of Tenth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2.
Lee, V. W., & Trifunac, M. D. 1995 (May). Pseudo relative velocity spectra of strong earthquake ground
motion in California. Tech. rept. CE 95-04. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Lee, V. W., Trifunac, M. D., Todorovska, M. I., & Novikova, E. I. 1995 (Apr). Empirical equations describing attenuation of peak of strong ground motion, in terms of magnitude, distance, path effects and site
conditions. Tech. rept. CE 95-02. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Lussou, P., Bard, P. Y., Cotton, F., & Fukushima, Y. 2001. Seismic design regulation codes: Contribution of
K-Net data to site effect evaluation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(1), 1333.
Manic, M. I. 2002 (Sep). Empirical scaling of response spectra for the territory of north-western Balkan. In:
Proceedings of Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper reference 650.
Margaris, B., Papazachos, C., Papaioannou, C., Theodulidis, N., Kalogeras, I., & Skarlatoudis, A. 2002a
(Sep). Ground motion attenuation relations for shallow earthquakes in Greece. In: Proceedings of the
XXVIII General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission (ESC).
Margaris, B., Papazachos, C., Papaioannou, C., Theodulidis, N., Kalogeras, I., & Skarlatoudis, A. 2002b
(Sep). Ground motion attenuation relations for shallow earthquakes in Greece. In: Proceedings of Twelfth
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper reference 385.
McVerry, G. H., Dowrick, D. J., Sritharan, S., Cousins, W. J., & Porritt, T. E. 1993. Attenuation of peak
ground accelerations in New Zealand. Pages 2338 of: Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Strong Motion Data, vol. 2. Not seen. Cited in McVerry et al. (1995).
McVerry, G. H., Dowrick, D. J., & Zhao, J. X. 1995 (November). Attenuation of peak ground accelerations
in New Zealand. Pages 287292 of: Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 3.
Milne, W. G., & Davenport, A. G. 1969. Distribution of earthquake risk in Canada. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 59(2), 729754.
Molas, G. L., & Yamazaki, F. 1995. Attenuation of earthquake ground motion in Japan including deep focus
events. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(5), 13431358.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
39
Molas, G. L., & Yamazaki, F. 1996. Attenuation of response spectra in Japan using new JMA records. Bulletin
of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center, 29(Mar), 115128.
Monguilner, C. A., Ponti, N., & Pavoni, S. B. 2000a. Relationships between basic ground motion parameters for earthquakes of the Argentine western region. In: Proceedings of Twelfth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Paper no. 1195.
Monguilner, C. A., Ponti, N., Pavoni, S. B., & Richarte, D. 2000b. Statistical characterization of the response spectra in the Argentine Republic. In: Proceedings of Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper no. 1825.
Ohno, S., Ohta, T., Ikeura, T., & Takemura, M. 1993. Revision of attenuation formula considering the effect
of fault size to evaluate strong motion spectra in near field. Tectonophysics, 218, 6981.
PML. 1982. British earthquakes. Tech. rept. 115/82. Principia Mechanica Ltd., London. Not seen. Reported
in Ambraseys et al. (1992).
Richter, C. F. 1958. Elementary Seismology. San Francisco, USA: Freeman and Co.
Sarma, S. K., & Free, M. W. 1995 (November). The comparision of attenuation relationships for peak horizontal acceleration in intraplate regions. Pages 175184 of: Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
vol. 2.
Schwarz, J., Ende, C., Habenberger, J., Lang, D. H., Baumbach, M., Grosser, H., Milereit, C., Karakisa, S., &
Zunbul, S. 2002 (Sep). Horizontal and vertical response spectra on the basis of strong-motion recordings
from the 1999 Turkey earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the XXVIII General Assembly of the European
Seismological Commission (ESC).
Sigbjornsson, R. 1990. Strong motion measurements in Iceland and seismic risk assessment. Pages 215222
of: Proceedings of Ninth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 10-A.
Singh, R. P., Aman, A., & Prasad, Y. J. J. 1996. Attenuation relations for strong seismic ground motion in the
Himalayan region. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 147(1), 161180.
Spudich, P., Fletcher, J., Hellweg, M., Boatwright, J., Sullivan, C., Joyner, W., Hanks, T., Boore, D., McGarr,
A., Baker, L., & Lindh, A. 1996. Earthquake ground motions in extensional tectonic regimes. Open-File
Report 96-292. U.S. Geological Survey. Not seen. Reported in Spudich et al. (1997).
Spudich, P., Fletcher, J. B., Hellweg, M., Boatwright, J., Sullivan, C., Joyner, W. B., Hanks, T. C., Boore,
D. M., McGarr, A., Baker, L. M., & Lindh, A. G. 1997. SEA96 A new predictive relation for earthquake
ground motions in extensional tectonic regimes. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 190198.
Stamatovska, S. 2002 (Sep). A new azimuth dependent empirical strong motion model for Vranchea subduction zone. In: Proceedings of Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper reference
324.
Sun, F., & Peng, K. 1993. Attenuation of strong ground motion in western U.S.A. Earthquake Research in
China, 7(1), 119131.
Trifunac, M. D. 1976. Preliminary analysis of the peaks of strong earthquake ground motion dependence of
peaks on earthquake magnitude, epicentral distance, and recording site conditions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66(1), 189219.
Trifunac, M. D. 1977. Forecasting the spectral amplitudes of strong earthquake ground motion. Pages 139
152 of: Proceedings of Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
40
Trifunac, M. D. 1978. Response spectra of earthquake ground motions. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE, 104(EM5), 10811097.
Trifunac, M. D., & Anderson, J. G. 1978. Preliminary empirical models for scaling pseudo relative velocity spectra. Tech. rept. 78-04. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A. Not seen. Cited in Lee et al. (1995).
Trifunac, M. D., & Lee, V. W. 1979. Dependence of pseudo relative velocity spectra of strong motion acceleration on depth of sedimentary deposits. Tech. rept. 79-10. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Not seen. Cited in Lee et al. (1995).
Trifunac, M. D., & Lee, V. W. 1985. Preliminary empirical model for scaling pseudo relative velocity spectra
of strong earthquake acceleration in terms of magnitude, distance, site intensity and recording site condition. Tech. rept. 85-04. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California, U.S.A. Not seen. Cited in Trifunac & Lee (1979).
Tromans, I. J., & Bommer, J. J. 2002 (Sep). The attenuation of strong-motion peaks in Europe. In: Proceedings of Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper no. 394.
Zare, M., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., & Bard, P.-Y. 1999. Attenuation law for the strong-motions in Iran. Pages
345354 of: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Tehran, vol. 1.
Zonno, G., & Montaldo, V. 2002. Analysis of strong ground motions to evaluate regional attenuation relationships. Annals of geophysics. In press.

Civil & Environmental Engineering: Dept. Report October 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil & Environmental Engineering: Dept. Report October 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil & Environmental Engineering: Dept. Report October 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dept.

Civil & Environmental Engineering

Errata of and additions to

Imperial College of Science, Technology

3. General characteristics of additional attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration . . . . . . . 21

4.15 Manic (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Errata to ESEE 01-1

Milne & Davenport (1969)

where A is in g . . . should read where A is in % of g . . .

Dahle et al. (1990b) & Dahle

Sun & Peng (1993)

and: G(R, R0 ) = R01 RR0

Campbell (1997) & Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994)

Chiaruttini & Siro (1981)

Extra references which cite equations given in ESEE 01-1

Some of the equations reported in ESEE 01-1 are

also reported in other references which were not given in

2. SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL PUBLISHED ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR PEAK

Denham et al. (1973)

McVerry et al. (1993) & McVerry et al. (1995)

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Ambraseys & Srbulov (1994)

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Lee et al. (1995)

or (if define site in terms of depth of sediment):

bi6 SLi + b70 rR + b71 (1 r)R

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Soil type C 180 ms1 < vL 360 ms1 .

Sarma & Free (1995)

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

where ah is in g, C1 = 3.4360, C2 = 0.8532, C3 = 0.0192, C4 = 0.9011, C5 = 0.0020,

Singh et al. (1996)

b1 = 1.14 and b3 = 0.615 ( is not given). Note there are typographical

Costa et al. (1998)

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Zare et al. (1999)

Ground motion model is:

Monguilner et al. (2000a)

Ground motion model is:

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

ns (is )M (ni )ne (ni , is )MT

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

2.11 Chang et al. (2001)

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

2.12 Lussou et al. (2001)

Campbell & Bozorgnia (2002) & Bozorgnia & Campbell (2002)

Ground motion model is:

f2 (Mw , rseis , S) + f3 (F ) + f4 (S)

wheref1 (Mw ) = c2 Mw + c3 (8.5 Mw )

g(S) = c5 + c6 (SV F S + SSR ) + c7 SF R

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Gulkan & Kalkan (2002)

Ground motion model is:

= b1 + b2 (M 6) + b3 (M 6)2 + b5 ln r + bV ln(VS /VA )

where Y is in g, b1 = 0.682, b2 = 0.253, b3 = 0.036, b5 = 0.562, bV = 0.297, VA = 1381,

2. Summary of additional published attenuation relations for peak ground acceleration

Ground motion model is: